Live Earth appears set to break all records in terms of TV viewing figures - see The Guardian. With the broadcasts going live to an estimated 800 million in China alone, they estimate a potential 2 billion people will actually view the Live Earth shows at some stage.
Profits from Live Earth will go to Gore's Alliance for Climate Protection. But the entire event has been questioned by Bob Geldof, organiser of Live Aid and Live8. In May he said: "I hope they're a success. But why is he [Gore] actually organising them? To make us aware of the greenhouse effect? Everybody's known about that for years. We are all f**king conscious of global warming."
Oh dear, if these numbers turn out to be true, Sir Bob will choke on his guinness!
Junkk Male adds:
Guardian - Public doubts on global warming - This is interesting (and scary) more for the replies. There is either a very well coordinated collection of BOFDis out there (possible) ready to pounce on any such thing in such as the Guardian, or a high level of disenfranchisement (sorry, I think probable) due to how all this is being (mis)handled.
Thing is, there seems to be a woeful effort to accept this latter possibility and work to change it effectively. I'm afraid that sticking with the 'we know better than you and you're an idiot for not accepting what we say' doesn't seem to play too well. And, frankly, I can see why it doesn't.
Be it those paid to wallow in GW/CC from government to academia to even the media, it simply isn't getting through in any meaningful way to those who really matter: the masses.
And if this is the reaction in Guardian PiousVille, just imagine what is going on in Mail MondeoLand. Actually, without wishing to get too 'demographic' (which sounds better than a variety of 'ists' I could be accused of), as I do spend a fair while in Times/Telegraph/BBC territory too, I can pretty much attest that a large chunk of well-educated, highly-paid professionals are not exactly on board either. And it's making me as popular at parties as a poo in the pool.
I'd say those who have self-appointed themselves as 'our' saviours need to have a bit of a rethink, and at least change their tunes a bit. Or find another cause to feed off if they are part of the vast army sucking bazillions out of talking a lot but evidently getting very little DONE.
I'm back, by the way. Wish it was good to be so:)
ADDENDUM 2:
I have now listened to the Al Gore Today interview, which was preceded by a piece about the MORI poll in question.
Interesting. I have to say I was perhaps listening out for it, but what came across a little to strongly in both was, again, this notion that any other opinions are wrong and, more importantly, should not be allowed to exist.
While I am obviously quite convinced that 'something' is deteriorating, and whatever mankind is up to sure isn't helping, I cannot help but feel that being so smug or, worse, arrogant as to deny those who would wish to exercise the right to a contrary opinion, is a poor strategy.
If their arguments are causing doubt, the more important question is to why they still feel that way (are they really so prepared to be the last of their lines, or at least labelled as those who stood by and/or contributed to the end?), and others are inclined to agree. Once this is understood one can work to persuade, using all fair and ethical means possible (especially by example, of which sadly I find many elements of the forthcoming concert, human and otherwise, to be sending at best a mixed message), those who are not acting to start doing so.
There will doubtless be plenty of commentary following the event, and I will be interested to see how it pans out short, medium and long term. But I have to say I will not be one of those signing yet another online 'pledge', if that is deemed to be of great significance. At the Oxford Climate Conference I watched, heard referred to and indeed met a few 'hard-nosed men'... and they don't get moved that easily by such things. What will... I'm working on.
From the Today Blog on this - I'm afraid to say that, as with all the other climate change 'debates', as the extremes dug in and the artillery/entrench war settled in, I tuned out. And I really do care enough to try and stay with it.
ADDENDUM 3:
Gaurdian - Why rock won't save the planet - Well considered in my (JunkkMale) view
4 comments:
Unfortunately, we are not all conscious of global warming, according to a story about a MORI poll on the BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6263690.stm
Apparently, 56% of us think it's not as bad as scientists and politicians say. That's worrying, as scientists who work on climate change generally say that it's much worse than the politicians. For example, see a review by Hansen et al published in Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society vol 365, pp 1925-1954. They argue that evidence shows that natural prehistoric climate change led to very rapid melting of ice sheets, and that it looks like Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets may go the same way.
I hope it doesn't take rapid rises of sea level to wake the politicians up....
Lawrence
Well, it looks like I will be having a minor splutter in my sherry, too, as I have not been a big fan of the way it has been shaping up either.
Thing is, hot on the heels of Concert for Diana (with acts 'selected for the American audience' - I'm guessing she was a big P Diddy fan that we were treated to another 'adapt', 'Candle-in-the-Wind' style, of a song originally meant for another dead person, which has always struck me as an odd homage) there has never really been much doubt on the numbers.
Having just got back from Venturefest (report to follow) at Harwell in Oxfordshire, with one of the two days devoted to climate change and a whole lot of boffins and money men in the audience, the issue is more turning 'awareness' into conviction... and then action.
The poll Lawrence quotes was mentioned a few times.
And having sat through the last few days I have to say I am still more with Saint Bob.
With the obligatory 'good luck to them', and the sincere hope they do structure the event to shape and direct the massive 'awareness' properly, I reckon it may simply serve the interests of those who operate the hype industries for about as long as a rating can be squeezed or a headline propped up. And the messengers and their antics become more important than the message.
Bearing in mind who the messengers are (and how they perform - I don't just mean onstage - subsequently may undo much. Is a Range Rover just a Prius Malfunction?), there is also a danger of further 'they can do it, so why not us?' scenarios as they consume like stink to do what they do 'in the name of awareness', which is rapidly shaping up like a green elite ents industry based on telling the rest of the planet what not to do... as they do.
I need to locate it, but in the car (yes, I drove there) yesterday I heard Al Gore was on Radio 4 (which I missed), but the feedback to his contribution was less than slavish.
I don't doubt his sincerity, but what I see of the industry surrounding him I just can't get into it all, and hence feel that while he may well have value at high-end political level, when it comes to motivating the masses he is one patrician step too far.
ps: By way of a taster for my review, one of the speakers, a climate physicist, agreed with Lawrence, but the desired 'wake-up' call is more likely to be a massive drought in the SW USA states pitting them against their Northern brothers. Nice thought. Not.
pps: Dave, how did you do that hyperlink?
Lawrence, I fully concur with your comments. I am extremely aware of the fact that many people are not at all conscious of global warming, and that most of those that are have already become convinced that scientists and pols are making a bit of a meal out of it; as in the old, "its all about another way of raising more taxes" argument.
My comment was more of a little pop at Sir Bob, who I am certain did not really mean 'verbatim' what he said. His comments were, in my view, more of a response that came from someone who was under his breath saying - "I wish I'd bloody well thought of doing that!" or, perhaps, "why didn't the b***ard ask me to f***ing well organise it!".
Though I definitely don't fully understand Gore's motives and underlying drivers, I do hope that Live Earth might get a few more to come on-side in understanding the potential threat that GW poses to mankind. As Peter has already commented, it will be all about just how the 'awareness' is shaped and directed. The original Live Aid, though many years ago now, had an awesome impact on vast numbers of people - I can remember watching people crying openly in my local pub, and then donating; people who before had never, ever, even had a single thought about giving as much as a penny to overseas charity. If Live Earth can replicate even 1% of that response in terms of raising awareness, then all power to Al Gore's elbow.
Hansen et al.
I too saw reports of the Hansen et al study, and very worrying it is too - I would have posted an entry about Monbiot's piece on it yesterday if I had the time - maybe later today.
Unfortunately, it WILL probably take something like the first sudden one Metre rise in sea level to shake the world's pols out of their slumber. Either that, or the first massive geo-political conflict in somewhere like Bangla Desh, where around 150 Million people will have to move to find food and water, even if sea level rises by only 30 to 40 cms or so. However, if Hansen et al are correct, then we may be looking at something more like a 20 Metre rise!!
n.b.1 Peter, I think I heard that Gore's live on Radio 5 Saturday morning - 6 am.
n.b.2 Peter, what hyperlink? Do you mean the one to the article in the paper?
Dotting about a bit here as I have just posted ('cos I can) an addendum on your original.
This actually has the Today piece archived, if only for a week. I plan to listen to see what went down during and after.
The hyperlink was in the blogger piece, which allows a highlight and click. My mistake.
I was wondering if it could be done as easily here. I think it may, but requires a bit of HTML code.
Post a Comment